The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-03-30
SIOUX CITY'S GREAT TRIAL.
Almost the Entire Day Spent in Arrang-
ing Legal Points Bearing on the Case.
The Judge Makes Conditional Ruling Which
Gives the Prosecution Decided Advant-
age in Developing Its Testimony.

Sioux CrTY, Ia, March 29-With the excep-
ton of few moments spent in examining Dis
trict Attorney Murphy-as he wished to leave
the city-the entire afternoon was consumed by
the lawyers in discussion of the competence of
certain testimony. The point involved was
clearly this: Whether evidence could be intro
duced, at this time, on the question Of the con-
spracy which led to the result of the murder in
which John Arensdorf was not connected by his
presence. Up to this date this objection has
been sustained by the court, but the State had
now reached the point as they contend, where a
conspiracy, out Of which grew the murder. lad
been fully established and that all matters here
after relative to that conspiracy, whether
Arensdorf was present at their inception not,
should be admitted. At $50 P. NJ the argument
ended, and the court, in passing upon the objec-
ton, said
ut is the sense of this court that instructions
are not to be given to the jury in the way of ar
guments from the bench, except so much as
may be necessary to advise counsel of the posi-
ton of the court upon the point raised. We
have arrived at that point in the case now where
the counsel for the State seek to introduce state
ments of one George Trieber, who, they allege
or claim. was co-conspirator with the defend
ant on trial. The defendant objects to the tes-
should allege, not the evidence, but the facts
showing the conspiracy. The second ground of
the objection is that there is not sufficient testi
mony to show prima facie case of conspiracy
and hence net entitled to be admitted. The
third ground of objection is as understand it,
that this testimony relates to a period anterior
to the criminal enterprise, or to the tendency Of
the alleged conspiracy, and hence not
admissible. With reference to the first
point. I may say that it is my view, as
it always has been in a of this kind, that it
is not necessary that the State should allese q
conspiracy in charge for murder where the
murder is the result Of a conspiracy on the part
Of several individuals. An Indictment in form
such as the one under which the defendant is
trial. is sufficient to entitle the State to
introduce such testimony as ia now offered
With reference to the next point in the case, l
may say that, whether a conspiracy is or is not
established is question Of fact, of course, for
the jury; they are to determine whether the
conspiracy is established. If such testimony 10
introduced or has been introduced as to make a
prima facie case then 1t Is the duty Of the court
to allow those statements to go to the jury to
enable them to determine whether it is a fact
that a conspiracy has been established. On
these propositions of the law, I take it, there
can be no controversy, and there does not
of the question that has arisen
l think there is a sufficiency of testi-
mony to make prima facie case, and entitle
the State to the introduction OF this evidence
With reference to tho third point, may say,
that is the only point during the discussion upon
which have had serious doubt. whether now
the State is entitled to introduce the statements
of this man Treiber. made to the witness Bis
marck, who 10 now upon the stand. These state
ments, il understand the facts correctly, were
made at time anterior to the meeting which
the State claims was held in Holdenried's Hall.
that meeting having been held on the night of
Aug. 2-Monday evening These statements, if
understand correctly the facts, were made by
TrASh has o R;cv 6ari do
of Monday OF course, presume there can be
no doubt that il they were made prior to the al
legged criminal enterprise which was adopted or
known of by the parties liz shat hall, that even
ing, they not admissible. / have thought,
however. that the better and wiser course, per-
haps, to pursue is to allow these statements to
be admitted upon the theory that they were
made during the tendency of the conspiracy. the
jury to be properly instructed, of course, at the
proper time, with reference to them. and if the
jury shall first 6i,d conspiracy and shall find
that these statements were not made during the
tendency of the conspiracy, then, Of course
thep will not consider them. 1t will therefore
follow. then, that the objection will be overrued.
This clears the way to the State for the intro
duction of wide range of testimony in which
| to fully cover the conspiracy and its attending
| results. The court then adjourned, will
Koschniski on tho stand.
Henry L. Leavitt was recalled this morning
| and again cross examined by the defense Fol
| lowing his testimony came Mrs Leavitt, hi
wife. The important part of her testimony rela
| ted to a conversation she overheard, just unde
her room window, between Leavitt and Arens
| dcrf. shortly after the murder. Arensdorf sale
| he had been before cor0ner's jury, but h
didn't know anything he said before the grand
jury; that Peters was a dumb Dutchman, ant
could not be fixed, and that he would have t.
send him away. After Arersdorf left her hus
band Mrs. Leavitt motioned for Harry to 90 al
stairs, and he did so. The subject of the CONVEX
satlon between the two men was talked over
She denied she had said these saloon mep il
Sioux City had no sand, and that eff had then
| to regulate would put petticoats on them; TO
two cents would do up Haddock myself" Sh,
| had never heard the name of Haddock befor
| the murder
Albert Koschniski, alias Bismarck, was tn
| next witness. He was arrested in San Francis
| co. in October. After his arrest he made con
fession, and charged the shooting on Arensdorf
| Much interest attaches to his testimony.